Direct Action for Open Borders

[Quantrill]

What is the official position of the U.S. Constitution?

When it talks of "citizens" I haven't found anything that says what is required to become a citizen.  So if anyone over the age of 18 comes to this country they are Constitutionally allowed to vote?  I'll admit, that does scare me.  Did the founding fathers really think it would be ok if Britain decided to send hundreds of thousands of people over to vote and change the political process to suit Britain's fancy?

Or now, if Quebec decides to send 40,000 people to NH to nullify what PORCs are trying to achieve?  I've said this before, but that would be the definition of irony.  People working for a "free state" only to fail because of French-Canadian Socialists.

On the other hand, if we say the Constitution only applies to domestically-born people then that would go against the "all men are created equal" rhetoric.

I guess I'm just not convinced either way...

[CNHT]

We've already caught people from Canada voting here...twice.

I'm convinced that to shout 'open borders' is just stupid. Why hasn't anyone else done it?

Believe me, it's what the government wants...it's only going to help THEM not YOU to have an excuse for universal health care and then REAL ID comes with that....

Right Carol Shea Porter?

Also, they are NOT knocking on doors in Manchester -- they just imported 5,000 refugees from another country. One of the families tried to get an abortion the other day because the father cited that he already had 5 kids and the schools were always asking him for too much money so he did not think he could afford a 6th child. They changed their minds when we offered them financial assistance with charitable help.

How ironic what with all the taxes we pay, the schools are asking the parents for money?

Something is very wrong here.

[forsytjr]

Amendment 14, Section 1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

While there are only two specific references in the Constitution to immigration , stated in this most important of documents as , "Naturalization, " there is clear evidence by the Framers as to what they intended concerning the rights of the people who live in this country and how those rights effect immigrants.

The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention , "naturalization, " are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.

The second reference is located in the 14th Amendment shown above stating that , "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," are, "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The key thought in the 14th Amendment which along with several other provisions established in the Constitution shows that the intent of the Framers was that citizens of the United States whether born or naturalized are granted the rights and privileges that are available in America.

[forsytjr]

http://federalistblog.us/2006/07/delegated_powers_immigration.html
This article is interesting.  Says that immigration policy should be a state issue (like so many other things).  Relative to my previous post, it distinguishes between naturalization (getting the rights of citizenship), and immigration.

[CNHT]

What my neighbors do is, they come here just before the baby is about to be born, but they pay for a doctor themselves and then the baby is automatically a citizen of the USA

[Brock]

Amendment 14, Section 1 - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

While there are only two specific references in the Constitution to immigration , stated in this most important of documents as , "Naturalization, " there is clear evidence by the Framers as to what they intended concerning the rights of the people who live in this country and how those rights effect immigrants.

The two references in the Constitution that specifically mention , "naturalization, " are found in Article I, Section 8 in creating the authority of the Congress, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." Thus from a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.

The second reference is located in the 14th Amendment shown above stating that , "All persons born or naturalized in the United States," are, "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The key thought in the 14th Amendment which along with several other provisions established in the Constitution shows that the intent of the Framers was that citizens of the United States whether born or naturalized are granted the rights and privileges that are available in America.

BW:

A uniform rule of naturalization is a far cry from quotas and restrictions.  From the Declaration of Independence:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

In Federalist 42, Madison makes it clear that the purpose is for a uniform rule; since the citizens of any state enjoy the benefits of citizenship in every state, it is not proper for North Carolina to decide rules of naturalization for New York.  Thus, this power should be granted to the federal government.

From the debate in the House of Representatives on a rule of naturalization (3-4 Feb 1790):

Mr. Page...I think, said he, we shall be inconsistent with ourselves, if, after boasting of having opened an asylum for the oppressed of all nations, and established a Government which is the admiration of the world, we make the terms of admission to the full enjoyment of that asylum so hard as is now proposed.

The proposed tough rules were a year in residence, an oath of permanent residency, and two years to hold a state government office.

Mr. White doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of Congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States. Now, if any State in the Union should choose to prohibit its citizens from the privilege of holding real estates, without a residence of a greater number of years than should be thought proper by this House, they could do it, and no authority of the Government, he apprehended, could enforce an obedience to a regulation not warranted by the constitution. So, in the case of elections, if the constitution of a particular State requires four, five, or six years residence, before a man is admitted to acquire a legislative capacity, with respect to the State Government, he must remain there that length of time, notwithstanding you may declare he shall be eligible after a residence of two years; all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization, and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.

The 14th was not written by the founders, but is considered an amendment even though ratified by states under duress, so it must be considered.  "Rights" cannot be granted as you said or they wouldn't be "rights" they would be privileges.  The 14th in no way repeals or reforms the rights enumerated (not granted) in the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights is very explicit in using the terms "people" and "persons" whereas the 14th concerns "citizens".  This is important because the Bill of Rights enumerates rights that the federal government must respect of all persons, everywhere, not just those who are in a certain geographical location or born on one side or the other of a line on a map.

Movement is a "right".  You cannot grant it to me, for I already have it.  You cannot compel me to use it, I can only agree to use it.  As there is no power in the US Constitution for the federal government to limit this right, it is protected by the 9th and 10th amendments for all persons, everywhere.

[Caleb]

Wow!  I can't believe how many people are willing to commit violence against someone else for crossing an imaginary line. 

[CNHT]

Wow!  I can't believe how many people are willing to commit violence against someone else for crossing an imaginary line. 

HUH? Commit violence? Who said anything about committing violence?

[d_goddard]

You walked into that one, Jane

[CNHT]

You walked into that one, Jane

Well I for one don't think following a law is necessarily violence.

[forsytjr]

"Rights" cannot be granted as you said or they wouldn't be "rights" they would be privileges. 

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was pulling this blurb off a web page that was discussing what the Constitution says about immigration, and that these words were not mine.  Someone had asked what the Constitution said, so I googled it and posted some of what I found.   I agree that rights are not granted by the state.  And the author of this post does mix up "rights" with privileges.  Thanks for your inputs - it seems to jibe with that other link of mine that says that immigration used to really be handled by the states, and that the Fed had no role (other than the naturalization process). 

Caleb, be careful with the advocating violence accusation, that cuts both ways.  We currently have a socialist system, that is a fact.  And I think you would agree that taking money through taxation is violence (e.g. for schools).  And that forcing someone to render services against their will is violence (e.g. in emergency rooms).  So when you advocate open borders, in conjunction with a socialist system, you are also advocating violence by letting people cross an imaginary line.  As I said, this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't issue.  And I think order of operations is important - free this country by getting rid of socialism, then open the borders.  Also, give states back their sovereignty, then open the borders.  That way the states can decide on their own immigration policies.

[Caleb]

Caleb, be careful with the advocating violence accusation, that cuts both ways.  We currently have a socialist system, that is a fact.  And I think you would agree that taking money through taxation is violence (e.g. for schools).  And that forcing someone to render services against their will is violence (e.g. in emergency rooms).  So when you advocate open borders, in conjunction with a socialist system, you are also advocating violence by letting people cross an imaginary line.

Except I'm not advocating open borders in conjunction with a socialist system. I am advocating open borders, and that people refuse to pay into the socialist system.

I'm also advocating that we try to stop doing business with the federal reserve (government's second funding source, and the source of inflation.) We probably can't go completely off the dollar just yet, but we can pay off all our debt, refuse to take on any new debt, and refuse to put any money in a bank.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was advocating a socialist system wherein people have money coerced from them. If you read my other posts, you will see that I consider taxation to be a modern form of serfdom, and is antithetical to the Golden Rule (which is the only "rule" that I give my consent to.)

Caleb

[Quantrill]

If we completely open the borders, then those people would be coming into a non-free society. 

How 'bout we fix things here and then open the borders! 
Then the people coming here wouldn't have to partake in the Socialist system currently in place...

I guess it's a matter of priorities.  While a completely free-market and totally open borders sound nice, I think there are more pressing matters at hand.  But again, we were all immigrants at some point.  Legal or not.  Welcome here or not...

[forsytjr]

I don't know where you got the idea that I was advocating a socialist system wherein people have money coerced from them.

I never said that.  In fact, I said that I'm sure you would agree with me that taxation is a bad thing. 
I admire your resolve to not pay into the system.  But I have a wife and kids that I have a responsibility for, so I am unwilling to go to prison over that.
I understand you are coming at this from a principled position, and appreciate that.  But to denigrate people who disagree with you, who are also coming at it from a principled position (anti-world government, pro-sovereignty), but just reaching different conclusions, does the debate a disservice. 

[FTL_Ian]

Wow!  I can't believe how many people are willing to commit violence against someone else for crossing an imaginary line.